Daily Papers

Active vision -- where a policy controls its own gaze during manipulation -- has emerged as a key capability for imitation learning, with multiple independent systems demonstrating its benefits in the past year. Yet there is no shared benchmark to compare approaches or quantify what active vision contributes, on which task types, and under what conditions. We introduce TAVIS, evaluation infrastructure for active-vision imitation learning, with two complementary task suites -- TAVIS-Head (5 tasks, global search via pan/tilt necks) and TAVIS-Hands (3 tasks, local occlusion via wrist cameras) -- on two humanoid torso embodiments (GR1T2, Reachy2), built on IsaacLab. TAVIS provides three evaluation primitives: a paired headcam-vs-fixedcam protocol on identical demonstrations; GALT (Gaze-Action Lead Time), a novel metric grounded in cognitive science and HRI that quantifies anticipatory gaze in learned policies; and procedural ID/OOD splits. Baseline experiments with Diffusion Policy and π_0 reveal that (i) active-vision generally helps, but benefits are task-conditional rather than uniform; (ii) multi-task policies degrade sharply under controlled distribution shifts on both suites; and (iii) imitation alone yields anticipatory gaze, with median lead times comparable to the human teleoperator reference. Code, evaluation scripts, demonstrations (LeRobot v3.0; ~2200 episodes) and trained baselines are released at https://github.com/spiglerg/tavis and https://huggingface.co/tavis-benchmark.

Modern coding agents expose multiple tool surfaces -- IDE primitives, bash, and Model Context Protocol (MCP) code-execution -- and the field has shipped three contradictory claims about which one matters. We run the missing crossed comparison: an integrity-clean three-arm ablation (baseline / bash_only / code_only) on synthetic computation tasks and SWE-bench Mini modification tasks, holding model, harness, and prompts fixed, with two agents (Claude Code, OpenAI Codex CLI) so the comparison spans both regime and agent-design axes. Across the four resulting (regime, agent) cells, restricting the agent to a single execute_code MCP tool is cheaper than -- or statistically tied with -- its cheapest tool-rich rival in three cells (significantly on Artifact/Claude and SWE-bench/Codex; directionally on Artifact/Codex), with pass rates statistically tied within each cell. The lone exception is SWE-bench/Claude, where code_only is directionally costlier (+14.4%, not significant); a conditional-cost analysis localizes that gap to failure-cost on doomed-run trajectories, not a per-edit tax on successful runs. Two implications: the cheapest tool surface is jointly determined by task regime and agent design rather than by either axis alone, and the headline cost signal lives in cache-adjusted cost -- not pass rate, which is invariant across surfaces at the model sizes we evaluate. The benchmark harness, task suite, and analysis code are available at https://github.com/hyang0129/onlycodes.